I've had to give the rebuttal to this argument many times, as well. I like to use a hand of cards analogy, too.
The thing people mix up with probabilities is that people make the mistake of thinking that complex life couldn't have developed without all those premises falling perfectly into place (the variables that make Earth habitable, variables that influence abiogenesis and evolution). We apply significance to the hand of cards the universe has because we're in it.
But it's not significant. It's clear by the vastness of the universe. There are presumably hundreds of trillions of stars in the universe, each with their own solar system, each with a habitable zone for life.
Even if the universe had developed in a very different layout (gotten a different hand of cards, and equally as unlikely), the stars would still be there, and there'd likely be stars elsewhere that had planets orbiting in their habitable zone. It's plausible that Earth is not the only habitable planet out there.

This piece was originally published on AlterNet. "But the Universe is so perfectly fine-tuned for life. What are the chances that this happened by accident? Doesn't it seem like the Universe had to have been created this way on purpose?" As I've written before: Many arguments for religion and a...